ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Cost-Minimization Model in Cryptogenic Stroke: ePatch vs Implantable Loop Recorder in Patients from the UK, Netherlands, and Sweden.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients who have experienced a cryptogenic stroke (CS) may benefit from extended monitoring and possible earlier detection of atrial fibrillation (AF), allowing for the timely initiation of appropriate pharmacotherapy. Objective: This economic study aimed to evaluate the clinical and cost outcomes of using mid-term cardiac monitors (referred to as "ePatch") versus ILR-only in post-CS patients in the UK, Netherlands (NL) and Sweden. Methods: An existing cost-minimization model was modified to fit healthcare settings in the UK, Netherlands and Sweden. The model's target population was composed of adult patients who had previously experienced a CS, but had no documented history of AF. The model compares the one-year direct medical costs between two groups: one group receiving wearable ePatch, the other group proceeding directly to ILR. Results: When applied to a group of 1,000 patients, the ePatch versus ILR approach resulted in cost savings, due to combination of reduced expenses and decreased modelled occurrence of recurrent strokes in all three countries studied. In the base case analysis, the cost savings per patient with detected AF for ePatch ranged from 3.4-6.0 times, depending on the country. Conclusion: Utilizing ePatch extended wear Holter for mid-term ECG monitoring in CS patients represents a cost-saving alternative to monitoring with ILR. The cost savings were achieved by reducing device expenses and by prevention of recurrent strokes via earlier anticoagulation initiation. Preventing recurrent strokes in this population is highly significant, as it can lead to improved long-term health outcomes and reduced overall healthcare costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.